What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?

[GostHacked]

MLW member Waldo does not accept disagreement lightly.

Neither do you. Some of the Ukraine threads prove it. But it's not the disagreement, it is how it is presented in many cases that is the problem with the self proclaimed troll, and with some other posters like yourself and Waldo. So you two are going to have to improve on how you post before you can start to address the issue of this other self proclaimed troll.

Waldo, an example from you in this very thread.

I almost responded to you in my last post as 'Saint Argus'.

That is the kind of stuff you need to drop. It's really pretentious and childish, and is the most likely reason you were ever sent to the cooler.

And for Argus

No, I'll leave it at "You're completely and utterly wrong and entirely ignorant about the realities of life over there"

How's that?

In a response to Bubber in the Ukraine Crisis thread I started, when he said that 'we agree to disagree'. You sure you want to take Waldo to task on that point?

Both you and Waldo have been trolled by that same person in this thread were we are discussing improving the board. Don't get caught up in it, you fools. You guys bite the hook too soon and way too easily.

The best thing is for everyone to throw him on ignore. Otherwise he is going to make your day bad by you allowing yourself to get caught up in the bad.

[waldo]

The best thing is for everyone to throw him on ignore. Otherwise he is going to make your day bad by you allowing yourself to get caught up in the bad.

everyone? Of course, even on a subset level of select "complainers/whiners", the ignore approach doesn't work as invariably threads are trashed to the point active/valued contributing members have simply given up and moved on. I previously related an example where a member put considerable time/effort into a well researched post... only to have that post, buried multiple times by incessant trolling. The several times I attempted to resurrect that other member's post were each met by repeated troll efforts... efforts that I didn't stoke or even respond to. Other's have spoken to the affect trolling has on new members, or those guests occasionally looking in. As for your personalization, I doubt there is anyone who has received the targeted abuse directed at me over the years. But no biggee, as I've stated to you previously, I give as good as I get... rather, I give better!

[guyser]

Things may change when mods finally learn the meaning of a few words.

Troll would be one for starters, but relax, schools out til Sept so no worries about this.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Guyser2

[GostHacked]

everyone? Of course, even on a subset level of select "complainers/whiners", the ignore approach doesn't work as invariably threads are trashed to the point active/valued contributing members have simply given up and moved on. I previously related an example where a member put considerable time/effort into a well researched post... only to have that post, buried multiple times by incessant trolling. The several times I attempted to resurrect that other member's post were each met by repeated troll efforts... efforts that I didn't stoke or even respond to. Other's have spoken to the affect trolling has on new members, or those guests occasionally looking in. As for your personalization, I doubt there is anyone who has received the targeted abuse directed at me over the years. But no biggee, as I've stated to you previously, I give as good as I get... rather, I give better!

The 'abuse' you talk of may be well deserved. Your pet names for other members is a complete turn off and childish. The main reason I do not participate in your threads anymore. You've been called out on this many times. But like the troll, some habits are hard to break I guess.

Because of certain posters I have had to change my style and tactics. Some with use anything against you no matter how trivial it is.

But you are not helping the issue by getting trolled and responding to the troll in this thread. You see, he feeds off it. And he is more than happy to have you and others feed him.

In the end you have options. Are you better than a troll? Only your posts will determine that.

[waldo]

since you appear to want to have a go... what pet names?

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Stop making this discussion personal.

Carry your personal discussions via the Personal Messaging function.

Ch. A.

[Argus]

And for Argus

In a response to Bubber in the Ukraine Crisis thread I started, when he said that 'we agree to disagree'. You sure you want to take Waldo to task on that point?

First, you do the same. Second,it wasn't a response to Bubber, third, how was that a personal insult? Basically, I was stating a fact. The poster was ignorant about the situation. Anyone who sides with the Russians in this IS ignorant about the situation. But you could find worse from me, I'm sure. As I said, I'm not a saint, and I didn't set out here to attack BC or Waldo. So I guess I'll give it to you that I have indeed been pulled off thread topic.

[GostHacked]

First, you do the same. Second,it wasn't a response to Bubber, third, how was that a personal insult? Basically, I was stating a fact. The poster was ignorant about the situation. Anyone who sides with the Russians in this IS ignorant about the situation. But you could find worse from me, I'm sure. As I said, I'm not a saint, and I didn't set out here to attack BC or Waldo. So I guess I'll give it to you that I have indeed been pulled off thread topic.

Yes I agree that you were not out to attack anyone here in this thread.

That's the thing, no one here is siding with the Russians. But your point was going off on someone who disagrees with you. That poster simply said 'we agree to disagree' and yet you still went off on him. And this was right after you complained about how other posters respond when they do not agree with you.

Pointing out inconsistencies in ones argument is hardly a personal attack.

[jbg]

Folks,

Stop making this discussion personal.

Carry your personal discussions via the Personal Messaging function.

Ch. A.

That's hard when a certain poster who shall go nameless has his or hers disabled.

[betsy]

My concern is with moderation policies on a number of stances. You are fixated, one might even suggest obsessed with a particular troll, far beyond his value. My concerns go beyond the personal indignation you feel towards him. And as I said in that PM I regard your own behaviour on this web site as almost as bad as his. The level of snarling, mocking, denigrating contempt in your posts is your stock in trade here. In point of fact, I don't believe I have ever seen you participate in a discussion without it. Honestly, are you like this in real life?

I have to agree with Argus.

My complaint is not about whether trolls exists or not in this site. I've got the choice - whether to ignore them, or tackle them.

My complaint is about the MODERATION.

And lest some others try to point out the noble act of volunteers to be moderators - that "noble sacrifice" is nil when one abuses the power that position gives him.

Why should I not complain if someone obviously practice unfair moderation tactics just because he's doing it for free! How absurd.

I used to make excuses....now I feel like I was grovelling just because I was "bestowed the honor to be able to participate in the forum." That's the message I'm getting from this site: shut up and feel gratitude that you're allowed to participate.

I'll give my valuable time thinking, composing and making topics about what interest ME to those sites that value my contribution, thank you.

It only harms the board when the moderator(s) are biased and unfair. THAT'S the most cited complaints by those that no longer come to his site! Let's not lose sight of that!

That number showing the numbers - MOST ONLINE: 321 - is the grim evidence how far down this site had fallen!

Edited April 18, 2014 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

But what, really, is the "bias" people keep pointing out?

Argus strongly implied that there is a leftist, "politically correct" bias against conservatives...but that begs the question of (very recent) suspensions of Waldo, cybercoma...and yours truly.

So in what direction does this supposed "bias" turn, exactly?

[cybercoma]

Charles Anthony is hardly a leftist these days. He has admitted to changing political ideologies and if one were so inclined, they could find his postings on other websites (some of which are also run by Greg).

[cybercoma]

That stuff is irrelevant though. I don't believe it informs his moderating.

[bleeding heart]

No, for some reason unknown to me, only a couple of conservatives believe that political bias informs his moderating.

I have no idea why.

[betsy]

Well I don't know if you've been following previous posted complaints from threads that have been taken away from this section. For one, I had a lengthy gripe about a removal of a topic I created....of course it's about Religion.

Charles A never read the OP of that topic - and if he did, he didn't get it at all. He cited the reasons of a couple of posters (Gosthacked and another one) who said it's redundant - as the reason. I believe someone had also called it a "TROLLING TOPIC."

Of course it was not. But to them, it was "trolling."

Anyway, since you've got very few people posting, and very few representing the religious side - what do you expect from a section called, RELIGION? DUH!

Why don't they go check out the BUSY RELIGION SECTIONS OF SUCCESSFUL FORUMS and see how a lot of topics are rehashed. Of course you try to go through various angles.

Either you want to have a busy Religion section that see a lot of topics being created - or you want a stagnant one that just try to make do with what's already been posted.

If you're going to be stingy about the usage of bandwidth - perhaps one shouldn't have a discussion forum for a site.

If you want a technical suggestion - stop whining about the bandwidth. It makes your site looks like it's teetering on the brink of closure. Who wants to waste time and go down with a sinking ship?

Anyway....

Why was I suspended for responding on this particular thread? CA cited me for being rude - and yet, that other poster (can't recall her name right now) personally insulted and frankly admitted to calling a fellow-poster an "idiot," and was never suspended.

Oh yeah, later after that, she posted that she apparently enjoyed chatting with CA....and she dropped that CA asked her for suggestions!

Am I envy? No. I'm saying that there is an obvious bias in his decisions. His judgements in moderating is highly questionable, and is the most cited complaints by most posters who no longer come to this site. If Greg upholds and stands by his judgements - then that puts Greg's judgement also in question.

They're the ones hurting this board. Not the posters!

Edited April 18, 2014 by betsy

[WWWTT]

I have to agree with Argus.

My complaint is not about whether trolls exists or not in this site. I've got the choice - whether to ignore them, or tackle them.

My complaint is about the MODERATION.

And lest some others try to point out the noble act of volunteers to be moderators - that "noble sacrifice" is nil when one abuses the power that position gives him.

Why should I not complain if someone obviously practice unfair moderation tactics just because he's doing it for free! How absurd.

I used to make excuses....now I feel like I was grovelling just because I was "bestowed the honor to be able to participate in the forum." That's the message I'm getting from this site: shut up and feel gratitude that you're allowed to participate.

I'll give my valuable time thinking, composing and making topics about what interest ME to those sites that value my contribution, thank you.

It only harms the board when the moderator(s) are biased and unfair. THAT'S the most cited complaints by those that no longer come to his site! Let's not lose sight of that!

That number showing the numbers - MOST ONLINE: 321 - is the grim evidence how far down this site had fallen!

This is a good "rant"!

Full of good criticism and no personal insults!

I like a good rant and feel that it's actually part of democracy to write and publish a good solid no bars holdem scorching rant!

I'm currently indifferent on the subject, but if you want people to read and take notice, try writing a good rant like betsy here and see what happens!!!

Hats off to you betsy!

WWWTT

[bleeding heart]

I understand, Betsy...I'm saying that a lot of people with wildly different views have been suspended. Heck, I was suspended because of the tone of a post I wrote towards...you!

I'm not complaining about the suspension, just to be clear. I only wish to point out that, whatever issues folks may have with the moderation, I don't think "bias" is a correct charge, nor a fair one.

[Argus]

But what, really, is the "bias" people keep pointing out?

Argus strongly implied that there is a leftist, "politically correct" bias against conservatives...but that begs the question of (very recent) suspensions of Waldo, cybercoma...and yours truly.

So in what direction does this supposed "bias" turn, exactly?

The fact they keep everything in secrecy cannot help but give rise to these suspicions.

As I said, I've been here long enough to remember when Charles was an active poster, and I remember his political views, and I remember he was quite to the Left, and politically correct (or at least, in my opinion). My last four suspensions have all been over what he percieved to be 'outrageous' insults towards Afghanistanis, Quebecers, gays, and natives. What does that tell you, politics wise?

In any event, it is my position that insults towards third parties which are not actionable should be permitted here unless they are likely to lead to flamewars. None of my comments were of that kind, they were, respectively, to paraphrase:

Afghanistan'c culture is very backward and not going to improve (more insulting than that but he apparently deleted the post so I can't quote)

Quebecer's nationalist culture makes it the most bigoted place in Canada (said well before the Charter of Values).

A particular individual was Chretien's bumboy (which he took to be a gay slur whilst I actually meant it as a kind of lackey)

The problem with a particular native reserve was not the government but the 'dumbass local natives'.

These are not the kind of remarks, even if put somewhat dismissively, which should draw suspensions. Now if I post something to the effect all Liberals are scumbags, or all tories are crooks, or if I transgress laws by suggesting something like we need to execute all purple skinned people, or that Fred Flintstone, our minister of boulders, is a pedophile and terrorist, well that's different. Those are the kinds of third party insults moderation needs to be stepping in for.

[Argus]

I understand, Betsy...I'm saying that a lot of people with wildly different views have been suspended. Heck, I was suspended because of the tone of a post I wrote towards...you!

I'm not complaining about the suspension, just to be clear. I only wish to point out that, whatever issues folks may have with the moderation, I don't think "bias" is a correct charge, nor a fair one.

One can be biased without being thoroughly corrupt. Just because a moderator is, say (for argument sake) more likely to punish someone saying right wing things, than someone saying left wing things doesn't mean he will necessarily let Left wingers off scott free if their transgression of the rules is pretty obvious. It has never been my position that Left wingers are getting a free ride here in terms of their behaviour.

[bleeding heart]

You're edging into, "Sure, but when lefties get suspended--unlike myself--they undoubtedly deserve it, ("if the transgression of the rules is pretty obvious"...sheer speculation, and so useless to this discussion); and you can guess this because the moderator has a leftwing bias.

???

A pretty convenient argument.

So, to recap: some of the suspensions are undoubtedly fair...like when the lefties are the subjects.

Edited April 18, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

I understand, Betsy...I'm saying that a lot of people with wildly different views have been suspended. Heck, I was suspended because of the tone of a post I wrote towards...you!

If people get suspended for the 'tone' of their posts that's news to me. I'm amazed one individual in particular is ever able to post if that's the case, though his posts the last few days do seem somewhat less ... abrasive.

[Argus]

Well, I have no opinion on whether your suspensions were justified. But how can you make the "politicization" argument, and then square it with the many suspensions of left of centre posters by the same moderator?

As I said, the fact it's done in secrecy means we actually don't know how often people are suspended on either side of the political spectrum, or for what. I can only go on my personal expereince which suggest a pretty stiff degree of political correctness on the part of the moderation, which in turn certainly suggests a decided lack of enthusiasm for conservatism.

However, it's my impression the number of suspensions has grown markedly. There almost always seems to be some regular posters under suspection, which has led to the now casual reference to 'der cooler' as their present location.

[BubberMiley]

I don't see how characterizing Afghanistan as backward, Quebec as bigoted, and lackeys as "bumboys" is conservative. Seems kind of insulting to actual conservatives to me.

[Argus]

I don't see how characterizing Afghanistan as backward, Quebec as bigoted, and lackeys as "bumboys" is conservative. Seems kind of insulting to actual conservatives to me.

Perhaps, however the political correctness which gets wide-eyed and outraged over such statements and is determined to punish the spakers is almost uniformly on the Left side of the political spectrum.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems pretty clear to me:

Insults leveled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.